But it's just a bubble, imagine how hard it will fall when Apple tanks, this doesn't mean anything because Samsung makes refrigerators, think of the children(!), rectangle patents, Foxconn suicides oh my!, Apple hates babies, satsfied customers are biased, Steve would never have allowed this, Lucy Koh hates Samsung (especially when she leaves it up to a jury), iOS is stale, etc., etc., etc.

/s

Did I miss anything?

Add something about Apple stealing the notification shade from Android and that about covers it.

I have been gifting shares to my daughter.. Now we both have started gifting shares to her 3 teenagers.

If all works as planned, most of my "estate" will be gifted and will avoid the tax man.

Edit: this doesn't include my "Terrible Towels" -- they're mine!

If you want to gift some my way I wouldn't mind

lol I had bought AAPL back in 98 and 99 when Steve had just come back, for 20 something a share, it split twice while I owned it and I ended up making about 10 grand when I sold it, I sold it after Apple had done very well with the ipods and itunes etc but before the major success of the Iphone, I figured Apple couldn't possibly do much more than it had done so I sold and upgraded my home, which went to my ex wife in the divorce, so now I look back and watch Apples stock go through the roof and I have nothing to show for it lol, but I still daydream that I had never sold it and live vicariously through those who still do own it.

I have been gifting shares to my daughter.. Now we both have started gifting shares to her 3 teenagers.

If all works as planned, most of my "estate" will be gifted and will avoid the tax man.

Edit: this doesn't include my "Terrible Towels" -- they're mine!

If you want to gift some my way I wouldn't mind

lol I had bought AAPL back in 98 and 99 when Steve had just come back, for 20 something a share, it split twice while I owned it and I ended up making about 10 grand when I sold it, I sold it after Apple had done very well with the ipods and itunes etc but before the major success of the Iphone, I figured Apple couldn't possibly do much more than it had done so I sold and upgraded my home, which went to my ex wife in the divorce, so now I look back and watch Apples stock go through the roof and I have nothing to show for it lol, but I still daydream that I had never sold it and live vicariously through those who still do own it.

That's one of several reasons that I would like to see a large split -- to bring the shares to a level that a new investor would be attracted to them.

Also, it would give me, my daughter and grand kids some flexibility on trading.

If you replot that chart starting at $700 as the starting point and $2,000 in 2014-2015... That's a pretty positive outlook. Change that to $35 and $100 and anyone could invest!

That's one of several reasons that I would like to see a large split -- to bring the shares to a level that a new investor would be attracted to them.
Also, it would give me, my daughter and grand kids some flexibility on trading.
If you replot that chart starting at $700 as the starting point and $2,000 in 2014-2015... That's a pretty positive outlook. Change that to $35 and $100 and anyone could invest!

They can still invest. If someone can't afford to invest more than for one share, then perhaps they should do something else with the money. Besides, I doubt we'll see Apple split so that the shares are that low. Maybe in half, or in quarters.

I wouldn't mind either way, but it's false to thnk that small investors can't invest with a high share price. After all, this isn't Berkshire Hathaway.

That's one of several reasons that I would like to see a large split -- to bring the shares to a level that a new investor would be attracted to them.
Also, it would give me, my daughter and grand kids some flexibility on trading.
If you replot that chart starting at $700 as the starting point and $2,000 in 2014-2015... That's a pretty positive outlook. Change that to $35 and $100 and anyone could invest!

They can still invest. If someone can't afford to invest more than for one share, then perhaps they should do something else with the money. Besides, I doubt we'll see Apple split so that the shares are that low. Maybe in half, or in quarters.

I wouldn't mind either way, but it's false to thnk that small investors can't invest with a high share price. After all, this isn't Berkshire Hathaway.

Certainly not going to get into a pissing contest about investments with @melgross...

However, it is easier for an investor-in-training to make trading decisions involving hundreds of dollars rather than tens of thousands of dollars.

From my experience, I could experiment with $17-$25 per share investment ideas -- but if it is a large percentage of your portfolio, a $700-$2,000 per share stock is not fungible.

Good for you! How long are you going to hold on to them? Depending on how much you own, that could be a small fortune!

For me, this isn't a simple question.

I bought some shares before the 2005 split in my Roth IRA. I could sell those, walk away with all the profits tax-free. I'd just need to reinvest in something that returns similar gains. Or maybe I should have sold AAPL and shorted FB.

The second batch was purchased in my regular brokerage account a few years later. Whatever shares I sell from that account would be subject to capital gains. However, I'm thinking of keeping those in my back pocket. If I ever have a one-time windfall in income, I could donate some of those fully-appreciated shares to charity and take the tax deduction without paying capital gains tax, whatever the rate is at that time.

When my AAPL holdings reaches 20% of my portfolio, I'll probably look at this much more seriously. Diversification is great, but AAPL is now a blue-chip, with more cash than anyone else, zero debt, and positive market growth. The shares are undervalued.

That's one of several reasons that I would like to see a large split -- to bring the shares to a level that a new investor would be attracted to them.
Also, it would give me, my daughter and grand kids some flexibility on trading.
If you replot that chart starting at $700 as the starting point and $2,000 in 2014-2015... That's a pretty positive outlook. Change that to $35 and $100 and anyone could invest!

They can still invest. If someone can't afford to invest more than for one share, then perhaps they should do something else with the money. Besides, I doubt we'll see Apple split so that the shares are that low. Maybe in half, or in quarters.

I wouldn't mind either way, but it's false to thnk that small investors can't invest with a high share price. After all, this isn't Berkshire Hathaway.

My typical advice to new investors is to never buy more than 20% of your portfolio in a single transaction. So, a $700 stock would mean that to buy a single share then need to have $3,500 ready to trade. An awful lot of people would never get involved with that kind of barrier. I know I started out with $2,000 hard-scraped together cash back in '98. (Bought Metricom, the maker of the Ricochet wireless modems. Made a pretty good profit too for a while...)

Lower share prices do make stocks more accessible. I don't think you need to get into penny-stock levels, but at least low enough that a block isn't over $5-10k.

That's one of several reasons that I would like to see a large split -- to bring the shares to a level that a new investor would be attracted to them.
Also, it would give me, my daughter and grand kids some flexibility on trading.
If you replot that chart starting at $700 as the starting point and $2,000 in 2014-2015... That's a pretty positive outlook. Change that to $35 and $100 and anyone could invest!

They can still invest. If someone can't afford to invest more than for one share, then perhaps they should do something else with the money. Besides, I doubt we'll see Apple split so that the shares are that low. Maybe in half, or in quarters.

I wouldn't mind either way, but it's false to thnk that small investors can't invest with a high share price. After all, this isn't Berkshire Hathaway.

My typical advice to new investors is to never buy more than 20% of your portfolio in a single transaction. So, a $700 stock would mean that to buy a single share then need to have $3,500 ready to trade. An awful lot of people would never get involved with that kind of barrier. I know I started out with $2,000 hard-scraped together cash back in '98. (Bought Metricom, the maker of the Ricochet wireless modems. Made a pretty good profit too for a while...)

Lower share prices do make stocks more accessible. I don't think you need to get into penny-stock levels, but at least low enough that a block isn't over $5-10k.

Yeah... I started with channeling stocks .com... Some stocks cycle between a hi-lo range over time. I had watched AAPL for a long time and they seemed to cycle between $11 and $23... So I bought some at $17.

It wasn't a major part of my holdings, so I just held it.

I have been buying ever since.

The nice part about Apple is that I know the company from personal experience and long term observation. Also, as secretive as they are -- there is plenty of info and analysis available on Apple -- probably more than any other corp.

They can still invest. If someone can't afford to invest more than for one share, then perhaps they should do something else with the money. Besides, I doubt we'll see Apple split so that the shares are that low. Maybe in half, or in quarters.

I wouldn't mind either way, but it's false to thnk that small investors can't invest with a high share price. After all, this isn't Berkshire Hathaway.

A lower share price would definitely make it easier to trade covered options.